Sir Exotic

You haven't actually defined 'good' or 'bad' here, so it is completely subjective. Anyway, I disagree with your premise that "force to bring about a good end is good" because we are not talking about simple 'force'. We are talking about the initiation of force, and the initiation of force is always immoral. Taxation is not just force, it is the initiation of force, and is therefore always 'bad'. But I'm afraid you have completely ignored my previous comment in where I explained everything in the clearest way I possibly can, so I'm giving up.

Earlier you said: "Rape is unwanted, not preferred, sex. You can not prefer to be raped because, if you prefer to be raped, you prefer the non preferred, a violation of the law of identity." By your own accord, and I agree with you, rape is necessarily unwanted because of the implication/use of force, which renders 'voluntary rape' as a contradiction. Taxation is similar, in that, if one prefers to be taxed, it ceases to be forced and therefore is not taxation. Let me demonstrate that here: ● Taxation = forced extraction of income/wealth = form of Theft. → If taxation is wanted/voluntary, then it ceases to be taxation and becomes voluntary → (voluntary) fee/donation*. ● (Forced) blowjob = forced sexual act = form of Rape. → If the blowjob is wanted/voluntary, then it ceases to be rape and becomes voluntary → (voluntary) sexual act. *voluntary donation is a tautology, but I decided to put it like this to avoid confusion, just to emphasize that it is now voluntary. You agreed that rape cannot be voluntary, because of the force involved. Then taxation, where (the threat of) force is also involved, also cannot be voluntary. I will say it again: Taxation is theft by definition because of the (implied) force. If a mugger on the street demands my money or he will harm me, me giving him my money is not consensual. It can only be consensual if he is not using or threatening with force (besides violent force as in assault, also fraud/coercion). If I then decide to voluntarily give him my money, it is not theft, but a donation. If that doesn't clear it up, I'm afraid I give up going around in circles.

..

You missed the part of my point where I explained that the consent is after the fact. After the person decides to use or threaten force. Taxation has the implied force if not obeyed, which fits in the definition of theft (implied force). I'm getting the idea you're just arguing this point for fun. Are you saying that taxation is not necessarily theft, because someone might consent to being taxes - after the fact?

So forced sex is not rape, because everyone needs to prefer not to be raped. So if at least one person consents to the forced sex, forced sex ceases to be rape, thus, forced sex is not rape by definition?

So you agree that taxation if theft?

Obviously not. Not yet. But if you follow that scenario a little further where you comply because of the threat of force, she did kidnap you (if we use "take someone away by force/against their will" as the definition). If a man comes up to a child saying "I will kill both of your parents if you do not come with me" and the child complies out of fear, the child is being kidnapped, it's not consensual. In both situations there is force, in the form of coercion (If you do not do this, I will...) The definition of force: placing a person in an involuntary position without their choice or consent (rape, murder, theft, assault, fraud and coercion)

That seems accurate. "I would ask death to wait for me to say goodbye to my wife and kids, and then I'll be ready to come with him."

I see what you're saying, taxation not necessarily theft because someone might consent. But the consent is after the fact, so you're kind of playing a word game with consent. Sex, by definition, is also not necessarily non-consensual. But if this sex is forced on everyone, it becomes non-consensual and therefore force (immoral). If someone consents after the fact (while the force starts, is ongoing or already happened) you are right that not all the sex was non-consensual, but this is again, after the fact. Addressing this from another angle: The reason why taxation is force/theft, is because it isn't a request. The government is not asking or begging you for some coin, but they are demanding it. If this demand is not met, the implication is force. THIS is theft (force). If a beggar on the street asks you for some change, you can walk away and he will not bother you besides calling you a greedy man. If a beggar comes up to you with a gun and asks for your wallet, because of the implication of the consequence of not consenting, it becomes theft (force).

Then I guess you have been living a pretty stoic life

I thought this was a wonderful presentation:

Those are my thoughts on that specific issue. Personal religion would still be a problem for me, not because it is wrong or immoral, but because of what it entails.

I agree with most of what you said (in your entire message), but I'd like to mention that if we're talking about someone who is culturally religious, I wouldn't call them religious in the first place. I would just say that they have certain values. For me, and I think for most people, religiosity necessarily includes a belief system, and not just the values that one holds. Otherwise I'd probably be a "cultural satanist", although.. satanism doesn't require a supernatural belief and is a philosophical position by definition. Not relevant to the topic, but I just thought that was an interesting point.

Then excuse me, from your message I didn't have much information to judge where you were coming from. I would go with the latter: reason, evidence and logic (philosophy) But based on the platform or circumstance this might not be an option (for example a dating website where the only option is religion or no religion.) Personally I would go for no religion if we keep it simple, but if you're willing to take the risk and ask the question, that'd be fine too. If they're the right person and accept reason, evidence and logic, they'll come around, just ask yourself if it's worth it. You can take the chance with someone who thinks spanking is great, and chance their mind, but I think we'd agree that it'd be much easier to just find someone who already agrees on the bigger things.

Religion in and of itself doesn't really matter that much, only what it entails. Someone who is religious, is superstitious, and that's what you should care about. When someone says they believe something on faith, it's not necessarily what they believe that you should care about, but the fact that they believe something on faith. Faith is believing something without evidence (or "pretending to know things that you don't know, or know you don't know") Faith is a rejection of reason, logic and evidence, and should therefore be rejected, and shunned. Another objection is that a religious person will hold the supernatural, and/or supernatural being (god) as more important than you. If for you there is someone more important than me, then have a committed love relationship with them, and leave me out of it. I am the most important person to my wife, and she is to me. My biggest objection to (some/most) religious people, is that they believe in a hell, believe that non-believers go there, and worship the god that is going to send them there. I could not be in a romantic, sexual or even friendly relationship with someone who believes that I am going to hell, and worships and/or claims to love the thing that is going to send me there. To claim to love or like that person is a rejection of myself. I would only ever marry an atheist, but not because they are an atheist, but for why they are an atheist. If they are an atheist for bad reasons, and those bad reasons (could even be based on faith) are things that I should reject, I couldn't accept it. I wouldn't marry someone because they are an atheist, but because they'd have the correct foundation where that atheism is built on. What it comes down to, and I think Stefan would be perfectly in line with me saying this: Principles. If you apply principles (logic, evidence, reason and morality) to anything, the result would be Atheism, Anarchism, Capitalism, Peaceful Parenting (I guess the most important 4 "positions"), etc. So don't choose someone because they are an atheist, but for how they got there, and of course don't judge someone based on just one of their positions. An atheist who 'worships' the state is not someone who strictly follows or applies principles to everything, so even if they arrived at atheism for the right reasons, that doesn't make them 'good enough'. Although, a person who has arrived at many good positions for the right reasons, would probably be easily convinced to change their mind on the things they haven't gotten right yet. Stefan's wife was a Christian when they met, and I don't know the story, but I'm assuming that she was easily convinced/persuaded of Stefan's arguments against religion/faith for the right reasons. Hope that helps

It's not about whether I agree with the whole thing, a part of it, or none of it. It's about the fact that the Constitution was signed (read: agreed upon/consented by) 39 delegates (people). 39, 500 or 10 million people cannot consent for the other 100, 1000 or 300 million people. It's not about who signed it or how many signed it, for how many people, for who, etc. it's about the principle: One cannot consent for another. Technically, and this is not just a clever joke, it's actually useful: I am not a US citizen, so I don't even have the rights under the US Constitution, so technically, yes, you can violate my rights guaranteed under the US Constitution. BUT! we are not talking about legal rights, we're talking about morality. Morality would not allow you to violate the NAP. I don't expect the government to defend my rights, and even if I did, I would still have to consent to them defending the rights they give to me, and consent to the duties they place on me as well, and consent to them taking my money to defend the rights they gave me.

Sure, it doesn't necessarily follow. You immediately came up with a situation where the person is traumatized or unconscious, in that case you'd be helping the person in their favor and it is assumed that they would have given consent if they could. That is very different from someone who is not unconscious, but of course you had to go to that to keep your argument afloat. If the person is not traumatized or mentally ill beyond speech, basic understanding or sanity, is not unconscious or in a coma, then can you still consent for another person? "we agree". You're assuming before the fact that everyone already agreed. Well then why are you making an argument? The point is not that everyone agrees, the point is what if someone does not? You can't say "yeah, well, but he does!" and think that it solves the problem. And again, you cannot consent for another person (see question above.) An enforcer of the rules that you agreed upon, sure. But that was not the question, I am not talking about a situation where you have already given consent, that's begging the question. Can I consent in your place to take your belongings from you, or can I not?

I'm surprised that you understand the argument, but you're not convinced of it. You're the scientist who believes the earth is flat. Yes, you can respond to violations of the NAP with self-defense, but you are not required to do so. It is not immoral to not act in self-defense. It is not your duty as an anarchist to respond to violations of your NAP with self-defense, just as much as it is not your duty as an atheist to come out as one to your whole fundamentalist muslim family. You say "I personally view". You view it as the price for living in a civilized society, which makes it consensual on your part. Just because you consent to something, doesn't make the action consensual for everyone else. Example: A man in a bar starts flirting with a woman and after a while insists to kiss her, she lets it happen and thereby consents to it (let's just assume they're both sober, or tipsy at best.) He gets bored with her very quickly and finds a new prey, but this time he skips the flirting and kisses an unexpected woman. She's outraged and screams at him. Just because the first woman consented, it doesn't follow that the second woman will consent. And even if the first woman claims to consent for the other woman, the second woman is still not consenting, because you cannot consent for another person. If that was the case, we'd be living in a very different world right now.. My question to you: Do you agree that one cannot consent for another, and that if you consent, it doesn't follow that the next person will? If yes, do now you accept that taxation is theft? If no, would I be morally justified in taking your savings if I think/say/view that you consent to that?

I wasn't talking about how easy or hard it was to leave a country, I was talking about it in terms of morality (the costs, permission and consent.) You're saying that I ignored most of your message, but at least I responded to your message. You haven't responded to anything I said to you, and that makes me wonder. Why would you spend time writing a comment complaining how you don't like my comment, when if you have good arguments, you could spend that time refuting my arguments. Can we stick to the topic at hand, taxation and morality, please?

To be fair, he was just stating facts, not his opinion of what should be the fact.

"I personally do not and will not view it as theft" > "because when" Is a completely subjective statement and not based on principles. "because when" implies subjectivity. Universality means "for anyone, at any time, in any place" and not "when". Your statement could also have been "I personally do not and will not view rape as non-consensual sex because when you consent to it, it's not rape." By not consenting to the sex, it automatically becomes rape. The same goes for theft: the moment you don't consent to your money being taken, it becomes theft. Deciding to stay in a place where you are born does not automatically equate to consent. I don't even have to bring up a situation where a person is being held hostage and cannot leave, so let's forget about that right from the start. It costs money, time and effort to leave a country, and on top of all that, permission. Besides that, you shouldn't have to leave a place if you're being stolen from. You certainly can if you wanted to, but morality doesn't require you to. And not doing so does not necessarily mean that you consent. Simply, deciding to stay in the place you're in after being put there (being born, for example) does not necessarily equate to consent. (unfortunately I feel the need to keep repeating this) If you live in a city in the US, there is a small chance you will fall victim to rape. However, being aware of the fact that there is a chance of being raped and staying in that place, does not mean you consent to the chance of being raped, and makes it therefore consensual.

.

That is exactly what I did with shirgall's reply. It would be hypocritical of me to shame you for that

Yes, and apparently it's still in the Play store for me